Starcraft 2

The game was split into three parts so Activision could charge you a little under 200 bucks for everything.

what's up with everyone saying Activision?
I don't see Activision's logo anywhere. Only Blizzard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard I guess?

People blame Activision's influence as to why bnet 2.0 looks like a fucking XBL interface. I can understand all the hate, new generation console gaming is a ridiculous concept and the console gamer is the milking cow of the gaming industry. The fact that they planned two expansions right from the start to get the best money possible out of it combined with the interface and also the premium map micropayment system and other stuff like region lock which could also be turned into more micropayment possibilities adds up on the PC gamer's mood. In the end the Starcraft playerbase has to pay over and over and yet has absolutely no freedom to do anything, see forced login to access campaign and lack of LAN, which gets us pretty close to the console gaming concept. The veteran Starcraft playerbase doesn't want to get associated with that.

Ahh... I learned something new today...

Activision is the publisher so to speak.

It was also after their merger that the decision to split the game came about.

Which is why Blizzard turned around and promised that there would be enough content in each game to make it worth it.

So yeah, it was Activision butting in that caused it.

They are also, most likely, the ones responsible for lack of lan play.

Not to mention they are the ones responsible for having to pay for tournaments, and trying to get more money with the premium maps.

Activision is fucking evil.

Some of the History from their merger.


edit:



This really is how the CEO of Activision is.

But the fact remains in the contract, it's clearly written that Activision has no say in any Blizzard games.

.......

You don't think they have any say in the games, really?

According to the signed contract, they don't. Blizzard did admit though they wanted to follow the same publishing business has Activision though.

If Activision HAD a say in their game, the publishing would be Activision - Blizzard. Has much as I know, playing SC2 right now, we never see the name Activision pop up in the title screen. (with maybe the exception of the credits)


anyway, i'm on a current 6 game winning streak. Which has NEVER happen.

I just won my first match with a pure zergling rush.
the other guy raged hard before he quit.

I completed the campaign altough I missed the "secret" mission. I'll get it on other playtrough. (once you've completed the campaign the mission doesn't unlock)

Trust me man. Activision has their grimey hands in everything.

The splitting the game into three parts for full price screams their work. I mean considering he went on record saying he wanted to make a 50 dollar game cost 500 dollars. (Aimed at Guitar Hero.)

Not to mention the key part of what he mentioned in an interview.



It's a blizzard made game. But that doesn't mean that Activision isn't having them put in practices to grind more money out of them.

Seriously, the lack of lan play does scream them as it is designed to force everyone who wants to play with you to be required to buy the exact same copy of the game you have.

And really, do you think anything signed in a contract bothers Activision? Have you seen the crap Activision pulled? They're literally in tons of lawsuits for the crap they've pulled.

I have never been so sick from hearing about a game.

I know Activision is shit, and I hardly own any of their games. But when a game, is well made, get's shit on. I try to protect it, from whatever it comes from.



First, part 2 and 3 will be price has expansion. Thus 30$, not full price.

Gears of War has 3 games. Halo had 4 games, has much as I know, they were all full price (50-60$) and the gameplay is the same same, with a few new weapons and maps.

SC2 is the same. They only changed the graphics, improved on the AI, changed the maps and gave it some new units. Oh and the single player is minimum 3 times longer than both games mention above. Multiplayer also offer's 100x times more things to do.

So, in the end, sure I might end up spending 120$ for SC2 + 2 expansion. But why is it wrong, when other games, many not publish by Activision, also do it. For 150 - 200$.

Oh and Reach is NOT that much of a change. It's freaking UT2004,bring that up to 250$ for the same game.

Blizzard is only following the path everyone created.

You're basing this on the assumption they'll charge it like a regular expansion.

Each one was expanded to include about 30 some missions for each campaign and is now being treated as a fully fleshed out game.

So yeah, I'm going to see them pushing towards the full game price.

Just completed the campaign for a second time.
a speedrun for the "Hurry up: It's Raid Night" (Complete the campaign under 8 hours)
I did it in 6 hours 16 minutes and 30 seconds :)

and now... Completing the campaign for the third time (missed the secret mission)
I don't care this game is so much fun :) definitly worth my money. If they charge full price for the other campaigns I wouldn't care. The game is just so much fun.

nacho and a friend of his are helping me a bit in multiplayer. I definitly need some work. too much idle buildings and need to work on my speed.

ryu I just maxed out my zerg tech and havnt got a chance to play today but god this game sis awesome.

I hate that Damn Black Hole when its used against me.

campaign and about 85% of its achievements done

ending was pretty godlike even tho I predicted *that* right from the start.

now time to massladder and bust out some crazy shit with the map editor

One of my friends is working on Brutal right now, some of the missions are damn near impossible on Brutal apparently.

The enemies are a lot tougher then on Hard. plus the game speed is higher.
it's definitly difficult.

I'm sad. One of the most anticipated games in a long time comes out on both Mac and PC and my poor comp can't handle it. Oh well.